How Control Of Education And The Media Allow Obama To Lie About Meaning Of Constitution
This story is a clear example of how an ignorant population works to the benefit of the ruling elite:
Obama Says GOP Debt Ceiling Demands Are an Assault on U.S. ‘Constitutional Structure’
“If we continue to set a precedent in which a president … is in a situation in which each time the United States is called upon to pay its bills, the other party can simply sit there and say, ‘Well, we’re not going to put – pay the bills unless you give us … what we want,’ that changes the constitutional structure of this government entirely,” Obama said.
I am not going to mix words here: President Obama is lying about the Constitution. Normally, logic and decency would dictate that I allow for the possibility that Obama is just mistaken. However, in this case, Obama and his spokespersons have told us he is a ‘Constitutional scholar’ who has taught the Constitution. Therefore, I must assume he knows better. This leaves one option: he is lying to the American people.
The problem of partisanship, which was created by the rise of a two-Party system, is not addressed by the Constitution. However, Party politics was not new to our founders, yet the Constitution clearly leaves the power to tax and spend to Congress, not the President. Thus, we can conclude that the founders were perfectly aware that a minority Party could hold up the spending desired by the majority Party so long as they had the votes to do so in either House of Congress. If one bothers to read what our founders had to say on this issue, one will find this was by design! This is exactly what the founders intended; therefore, Obama is lying about the intent of the Constitution.
The founders wanted this ability to ‘check’ the power of a majority Party. They saw it as one of the ‘checks and balances’ in our Constitution. If Obama is correct, and Congress was intended to just rubber stamp whatever the President wants, the founders not only would have given the power of the purse to the President, they would have set our government up as a monarchy or dictatorship. But the founders didn’t do that. They designed our Constitution to hold off the rise of tyranny as long as possible, and Progressives – like Obama – know this. This is why Progressives have been working to undermine these protective checks and balances since their movement first arose.
Here is why knowing and understanding history is important. If you do not know that what I just explained is exactly what the founders wanted; if you do not understand why they designed the Constitution to include these checks and balances; then you are much more likely to accept Obama’s lie, which then gives him the political power to subvert the Constitution. But, if you do know the founders wanted these checks and balances, and you understand why, then you immediately know that Obama is lying and you reject his argument and fight his agenda, which protects individual rights and liberty. Indoctrination is what makes this sort of deception possible; education is the defense against it.
[Are you starting to see why the Progressives see control of our education system, our media and direct democracy as essential to the realization of their goal of centralized, authoritarian government?]
The Oil for Your Lamp 
Obama is not lying about this. After the legislative branch passes its laws, the executive branch is given the constitutional mandate to execute them. What we have right now is a legislative branch that passes laws then doesn’t want to pay for them, which infringes on the executive’s ability to execute. If Congress has passed laws that say there shall be welfare under such and such conditions, then it’s up to Congress to fund welfare under those conditions. If you don’t want to spend money on welfare, you first need to change or get rid of the welfare law. Until then, Obama is right to say that the legislative branch is infringing on his constitutional obligation to make sure the laws are faithfully executed. We have an ignorant bunch of Tea Party Republicans who love to hear themselves talk about the Constitution, but don’t even understand how it works.
Henry,
Those welfare laws are themselves UNCONSTITUTIONAL! What we have in you — and the rest of the Progressive Left — is a total refusal to acknowledge this simple FACT! And it is a FACT not because I said so, but because the man who wrote the Constitution said so — JAMES MADISON! There is NO higher authority on this subject — period.
You have not made your case. All you have done is further exposed the extent of the lies our government is telling us — OBAMA CHIEF AMONG THEM!
The House, the Senate, the President, and the Judicial branch, are all bound by the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution adopted in 1789 and her lawfully adopted amendments, which become part of the Constitution after proper adoption in accordance with Article V (5) of the Constitution.
Joe, skirting off of Henry’s well made point doesn’t make it less right. We are obligated to pay for what has already been voted into law or take the time to vote it out. But the constant fake threat of shutting down government is silly. Good example: Obama care is already a Federal Law, fund it or take it back to court and refight the battle. The GOP is forever blowing smoke and sending fake messages to the American people when they can’t even find agreement in their own party anymore.
Deb,
No, we are not obligated by the dead. The problem here is that we are mixing entitlement with right, and they are NOT the same thing. To grant an entitlement to some that must be paid for by others is to negate the rights of those who must do the paying. Then add to this that the people doing the paying — in most cases — were not even born at the time this slavery was imposed on them (and it is slavery) and you have laid waste the entire Constitution as well as the principles and ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
No, I will agree with you: The GOP is as bad as the Democrat Party. Both are lead by Progressives; and both oppose the principles of republicanism and the rule of law. BUT, I disagree with your assertion that the courts have the final say in a law. they do not, and the founders said so. What you actually want — whether you are aware of it or not — is to grant the Courts power to make law where Congress cannot overcome the will of the people. This is the Progressive plan, and it is largely what has happened. Case in point: SCOTUS changed Obamacare, therefore, it is NOT law. What is in place now is NOT the bill passed and signed, therefore, you are advocating for lawlessness.
None of what you support is Constitutional, nor is it based on Natural Rights and Natural Law — which is why our society is failing: because we have abandoned our founding principles in favor of the rule of men.
….. and you said, ” And it is a FACT not because I said so, but because the man who wrote the Constitution said so — JAMES MADISON! There is NO higher authority on this subject — period.”
Pretty sure, Joe, that James Madison is a man. “Founding Fathers” “Founding Principles” “rule of man”.??.. yup!!.. I’d say so.
Have a nice day, and keep thinking! You’ll get there.
Deb,
I am already here — hoping you will join me. I did not say Madison was infallible, but nice of you to try to make it seem that way. Straw man is the mainstay of the Progressive mind, but it will not work here — not on me, anyway.
What I said is that Madison, as the man who wrote both the notes on the convention and the Constitution — is the highest authority on what the founders intended: what the Constitution means and how it was intended to be read. This IS a fact.
Madison clearly and specifically said that the Constitution does NOT allow for ANY form of welfare or socialized spending. To then say that it does is to change the Constitution without using either of the prescribed means of doing so. This is lawlessness and tyranny.
Now, you may disagree, but that does not make you correct. many people can be absolutely certain in their opinion and still be wrong — because their opinion is wrong. I am trying to be kind in telling you that this is the case with you and your position.
Now, if you want to change this situation, then — by all means — please do so. But do it according to the law. Amend the Constitution to allow socialism, or — better yet — write a new Constitution and get 3/4ths of the States to ratify it. HOWEVER, if you decide to achieve your goals through rogue courts and changing definitions or finding language in the Constitution that simply isn’t there; or by equivocation, then you had best be prepared to deal with those who will defend Truth against deception. We will oppose you and your deceit at every turn. It is this simple.
“I am already here” ……. Fun to meet someone who feels they have arrived.
“I did not say Madison was infallible”………. “NO higher authority”???? gosh.. that’s more perfect then God.
“I am trying to be kind in telling you that this is the case with you and your position”…… first off, you are not a kind person at all in your responses, you get posters mixed up I think, as I never stated my position at all. But right off you started calling me names and associating me with a party line. Odd.
“if you decide to achieve your goals”…….. I never stated that I had any goals. but hey, great welcome to your blog!!
“We will oppose you and your deceit at every turn”…… WOW!!!… Who is we? You sound like I have come with an army to attack you. And that I have purposely felt to be deceitful, when in fact this could have been an opportunity to tell me something about yourself as I just ran on to you though a friends site who happen to post something from your site.
“It is this simple”…… Simply, you seem to have a persecution complex and I find it won’t be possible for me to learn anything from you or your site as you are hostile to conversation.
Deb,
You demonstrate that you do not understand — or refuse to acknowledge — the basic principles of logic and right reasoning with your comment about Madison.
Thus, you thereby demonstrate that, wherever you think you have arrived, it is not on the hill of right reason.
How did I get you mixed up? You have consistently defended a Progressive, anti-constitutional line. But yes, I will readily admit that I do sometimes get posters mixed up. I try to avoid it, but age is starting to impose itself on my mind — a mind that was never good with names and faces to begin with. I pray this event passes you over.
If you have no goals, why assert and then defend a Progressive, anti-constitutional agenda? And why do so in a fallacious manner?
You’ll have to forgive me, but I don’t see how any of your comments show an interest in what this blog is all about. You started by asserting Henry has a “well made point.” I rejected that claim when Henry made it and I reject it now that you are trying to make it. All you did was declare a collectivist view of entitlements as rights. At no time did you ask for clarification of why I hold this view. Instead, you doubled down. And now that I have defended my position, you are reverting to the next step in the Progressive play book: feigning injury and victimhood.
Deb, you are right: you will not be able to learn anything from me — because your mind is already made up. Either I have to agree with you, or I am whatever name or characture you wish to assign to me. Unfortunately for you, this Progressive formula is now well known and understood — so much so that we can not only explain it as it progresses, we can predict what will come next. Case in point, you have already started with the ridicule and ad hominem. Nothing new.
“You demonstrate that you do not understand — or refuse to acknowledge — the basic principles of logic and right reasoning …” Mostly I have just been repeating you and trying to make since of it… like ‘who are you talking to?’ and about what?
” wherever you think you have arrived” I never said I arrived… you did!!
“How did I get you mixed up? You have consistently defended a Progressive, anti-constitutional line……….. why assert and then defend a Progressive, anti-constitutional agenda? .” I didn’t defend anything at all… just mentioned you took the posters comments off course. You must be referring to conversations you have had with other people.
” All you did was declare a collectivist view of entitlements as rights. ” I never talked about entitlements, talked about law and changing the law as being the root problem. If we are going to go by ‘rule of law’ lets change the law. That WAS my one and only political statement in the whole conversation. All the rest of it was you calling me names and pigeon holing me.
” this Progressive formula ” This is a new term for me… still trying to figure out what you are even talking about.
But clearly you have mistaken me for some other Deb as this IS the first we have spoken. You make it feel like we have had some long conversations where we are on opposing sides. And that I am some savvy liberal with an agenda who just came to torment you today. geesh..
I think you are just looking for a fight.
Sorry I didn’t really learn anything about what you stand for other then what you hate.
You can go ahead and have the last word…. sure you won’t be able to help yourself.
Deb,
One does not have to change the law when the law allows Congress to simply defund it. This is one of the checks-and-balances built into the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, defunding a program is legal — by definition. Arguing that it is not is undermining the rule of law: not the other way around. The Democrats have used this in the past, themselves. They did so quite often under Reagan.
As for the rest of your comment: I think you are the one confused. As you keep showing by citing my own words: I have been replying to YOU every time. I replied to what YOU said. I did not get you confused with anyone else. Nor did I take Henry’s comment off topic.
You see, Deb, it is assumed that — if you are going to discuss something here — you already have a certain background understanding of what is being discussed. Now, I know this will sound snotty to most readers, but it is nothing more than a Sheldon Cooper-like statement of fact. In this case, I assumed you know and understand the Constitution — AS RATIFIED (not as amended by assertion and assumption). And that is where I was coming from in every answer I made to you: an understanding of both the Constitution and the principles of Natural Law upon which it is founded.
Maybe if you had asked questions rather than continuously made assertions while claiming injury, you might have presented yourself differently. But, as it stands now, I no more believe your sincerity than you do mine.
You’re quite the ladies’ man, B. Here, I’ll cheer you up: 😛
lol, ty 🙂